What values separate Dean supporters from all others?

It seems there is a common theme among Dean supporters (which I am one), and that is: We're sick and tired of this bullshit, to the point where, we have one foot out the door of the Democratic party. Everyone else is irritated with us, saying we criticize Kerry or the other Democrats too much. They say we're disruptive and disrespectful, but what we really are is angry and fed up.

OK Dean supporters, time to speak up. Why do you like Dean? When you're not being attacked by other Dems for being pro-Dean, what do you envision for America? What legislation would you love to see the Democrats get behind?

to get out of the space vacated by the republicans when they moved into fascism. To be concerned about peoples quality of life and not their own bank account.

Of course I'm talking about the Dem's and Rep's in office and running the parties not those of us that are still real democrats and republicans.

we support Dean, and always have, because he understands we can't be repuke-lite. The Democratic party has to show the middle class that we are for them and they should be for us. This ought to happen before the Depression and Draft, not afterwards, when it will be too late.

and that is what the big Democracy is all about. Whether you are green, or Dean, or Republican we need to do more politics than just vote and Dean has said that.

There is a lot more I like about Dean but that is just one thing I listed.

Dean encourages us to work for change instead of simply waiting until an election to vote.

Dean doesn't act as if we should simply blindly follow him. He's eager to share-knowledge, strategies, credit for accomplishment and resources-with us and other Democrats. He works as hard as we do, if not harder to further our commond goal of a Democratic Party-and even a left overall that's true to its best instincts.

One thing too, I've noticed: Dean has, despite all of the money, fame, and acclaim, remained down to earth and true to himself. He doesn't travel with a huge entourage, encourage groupies, or hang out with celebrities. There's no new Mercedes in the driveway (but if he takes the Party and country back, he could ride a limo for all I care). There's no velvet rope line attitude with him from what I gather reading online. He's just as unfailingly courteous to a secretary as he is with say a Clinton or a Kerry.

He can be trusted. Despite what has to be enormous pressures and even temptation, he keeps secrets and doesn't indulge in gossip (at least not so that reporters can hear)

Dean is a team player. He could have gone third party or joined Nader and wrecked Kerry's chances. He could have simply dropped out and waited to see what would happen in the General Election. Instead he raises money for Kerry and encourages others to work for him.

Honest. We know that his opinions are his own, not some talking point trash. While the campaign burnt $50 million, none of it was by it sticking through his fingers or the fingers of his family and friends.

In short, there's a lot to admire about Howard Dean.

I don't see that much of a difference in the values of supporters of different Democratic candidates. For that matter, I think the difference between values of Democrats and a lot of Republicans is overstated.
That's why I'd say it has more to do with strategy and tactics. That is a point you actually address when you say you're sick and tired of this bullshit. Well, I am also.
I think phrasing the question in terms of values risks being divisive and I'm with Dean on that issue when he said a year ago that he's tired of being divided in this country.

I might use that clarification with my local party people

In other words, some democrats are still so willing to allow corporations to fund and run the party and control the politicians we vote for.
We want a real populist movement while other democrats see top down corporate sponsored candidates with big e-mail lists and call that a grassroots effort.
So it is also a problem of perception. Many democrats do not perceive what a real mess we are in.

:-)

Because Dean genuinely cares about his country, party, and people, he's open to a strategy that relies on ordinary people to make it work. And he's willing to give up a Presidential run to make it so.

Someone who wanted to rebuild the party may have wanted to do it another way by consulting a lot of expensive experts and pollsters and wealthy people and created an institution with enough money and pressure and propaganda to buy politicians. The Repug "stink tanks" certainly don't solicit, except as perhaps polling data, the opinions of ordinary people. And ordinary people certainly aren't welcome to join, craft policy or strategy, or even attend the many seminars and training sessions. Dean trusts our intelligence enough to believe that we can not only do the scut work but the thinking work as well, and that we can learn whatever it is we need to learn to do our jobs effectively. We don't need a Phd or a Congressional staff position in order to be trained and knowledgeable. We don't even need to graduate from high school or have designs on a major political career.

The same continuing downward spiral of irrelevance, captitulation or endorsement of the Right while the population is either kept in line via fear or ignorance or lack of representation?

The question now is do we fight to define the party? If we leave, they win, and they will continue to put all their effort and energy into marginalizing the Progressives--not the Right. They will side with the Right and the corporate press against any challenge. Dean offers us a way to reclaim some representation within the framework now, whereas leaving the party now make take years to establish a mainstream alternative.

Do we have the luxury of time?

thinking DU is representative of the real world. I am a Deanie and so are many of my friends and political allies. We've done a lot of work on the local level and achieved wonderful things. We are currently increasing our efforts and moving into positions of leadership on a local and district level. We're elected to these leadership positions by the other Dems here. They are not "irritated with us", on the contrary. They seem very happy with how we are participating and leading the efforts.

The world of on-line forums is more of a pretend world. Easy to manipulate perceptions. Don't be taken in by the negativity of this particular world, get involved in your local effort and see how that is. You may pleasantly surprised.

Julie

One of the reasons I don't see it as being a separation of values is because I talked to a lot of Kerry and Clark supporters during the primary season (people I work with, people outside of work) and I never heard them phrasing their support in terms of disagreeing with Dean's values, it was always in terms of who they personally thought had the best chance in the election in November.

During the primaries on Dean had any activity going on here but afterward I did talk to a few who claimed to have been Kerry supporters early on. The reason always given was "he's more electable". Only know of one Clark supporter here and her reason given was that "he's so wonderful".

Never did I witness any of the venom between camps in the RW that I see here daily. No one really seemed to care who backed who in the primaries, we worked for our common goal like grown ups.

Julie

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If you strictly compared the Dean supporters and other Democrats in terms of issues, their stances would be virtually alike.

of the Dem party before Dean ran for President, is that what you are saying?

I'm not being judgmental, just trying to understand why I find myself as disconnected from most Dean supporters as I am from Repubs (I know some of the reasons why but if it is true that people were on their way out of the Dem party before Dean ran it might make things clearer).

I'm being serious when I say that it must
be frustrating for those who don't "get"
why Dean is a beacon for many of us in the
grassroots. He told the truth and early on.
He continues to tell the truth and in a timely
manner. He's a leader, a tested government servant,
a fiscal conservative, a pragmatist and in
the right place and right time he understood
his role. He not only has nurtured that role,
but extended his service to a new organization
DFA for a better future for this country and
the Dem party.

I'm frustrated also that some at DU and in DC
don't get it and I'm tired of explaining over
and over why Dean is a light to many of us and
would work his heart out to make the needed
changes in the way things have been done at the
DNC and been unsuccessful in the past.

It's also clear that no one else really sets
the grassroots on fire like Dean does.

was at a speech at a Jefferson-Jackson dinner long before he began to run for President (though I'm sure that was a first step). Over time he lost that sheen. I no longer find him inspiring or original.

I "get" that Dean still inspires many. Can you accept that he doesn't do that for everyone?

I didn't ask you to either justify or explain your support, I was just wondering if most of the supporters attracted to Dean were planning to leave the Dem party before he ran.

There's a few posters who have been saying "Dean or go Green" - did they want to re-register before the 04 race?

Anybody?

in fact Dean supporters worked hard for Kerry/Edwards,
both in time, shoe rubber and money. If you're trying
to make an argument in saying Dean supporters have and will
leave the party to justify the election of one of the other
candidates, it's weak.

I personally did leave the Dem party but only
because they aren't working for me right now.

If Dean gets the Chair and does what I think he
will, I would have some incentive
in coming back to a reformed party.

I asked a question for clarification, that's all. I'm not invested in the fight for DNC chair. I don't get to vote.

I don't have any plans to join another political party, so I guess I'll have to live with whoever is chosen whether I like it ot not.

and I support Dean. I don't support Dean for a lot of the reasons people have listed above my post here. I do support Dean because I look at Dean's full record, not just the last two years.

I think all the Democrats need to return to power is a willingness to fight and act like a political party again and seriously take on the debate on the issues in all 50 states, instead of hiding out. And you need to let each state decide what part of the overall message sells best in their own state.

If you look at Dean's full record and positions, you don't see far left, but an interesting mix of fiscal conservatism and social moderation and tolerance. He has a proven track record of fixing things and a no-nonsense attitude. And most importantly he is not afraid of the Republicans and willing to give power back to the grassroots.

It is sad that there are a large number of Democrats who seem to believe our most basic core positions of taking care of the little guy "won't sell" in purple states. Dean doesn't believe that, I don't believe that, and I want someone who is at least willing to try a different way to organize and sell our basic message. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result. We MUST have a real change in attitude at the DNC if we want a different result.

...started from the grassroots.

I know that's not the answer to your question, but I thought I'd take the opportunity to share an observation I have about Dean supporters. Dean supporters -- because of the internet -- feel that they have a much more direct connection with Dean than other supporters feel. They feel that the power comes from them and that Dean is the vehicle that harnesses all their political power.

To a degree, that's true.

The only candidate I saw who seemed to reflect how pissed I was at bush was dean. The others are pretty much wishy washy on it. Like they're just reading a script. Possible exceptions maybe Al Sharpton, Kuchinich and Wes Clark. But they were still a step below dean. I felt dean was really the first to fearlessly say he was against the war then the other candidates all said "me too", "me too"

We need to help heal and unite our party, not drive more wedges into it, and I frankly fail to see how posts like this hope to accomplish that--- and I am a hardcore Deaniac.

he understands how the Democrats are going to take back the majority again.

Right now the party is built to be a minority party. It doesn't have strong views, (hell, we even have an anti-choice senate leader), it reacts to what the Republicans do, rather than shapes the debate itself.

Dean knows that in order to win, we must give people a reason to vote for us. That means we must have our own ideas, and that we must work outside of the framework of the Republicans. That framework is designed to keep them in power.

Let me give you an example. According to the Republicans, the Iraq War is part of the war on terror, and it's connected to 9/11. When the Democrats voted for it, including Kerry, they were thinking "if I don't vote for this, I will be called unpatriotic and weak on defense." The Republicans set up this framework in order to make it impossible for the Democrats to vote against. For the most part, it worked.

In the real world, the Iraq War had NOTHING to do with either 9/11 or national security, since there was no actual evidence of any weapons or ties to Al-Qaeda. Moreover, it is a DISTRACTION from the job we need to do, that is arrest Osama Bin Laden for planning the attack on the WTC and pentagon. A good opposition party would have pushed this framework publicly.

I was for Kerry, preliminarily, a LONG time ago, before the IWR vote. I didn't think Dean could win. But when that vote happened, and Kerry was a part of it, I knew the Democrats were going to crumble before Bush. I said to myself, "this election has to be about more than who we think can win. It has to be about what kind of party we were going to be." I went for Dean after he bravely criticized both the war and the Democrats' sad response.

I knew, that if Dean were nominated, he would do something the Republicans' wouldn't expect, or know how to handle; he would stand up to them. He would challenge Republican ideas that the Dems normally don't: ie tax cuts are better for the middle class than social programs, the war in Iraq is a part and parcel of the war on terror, deficits are good.

He would make a competing framework from which he would run. It would go something like this: the tax cuts were a screwjob for the middle class, the war in Iraq was a distraction from our crucial unfinished national security duty of getting Bin Laden, and we MUST balance the budget.

The beauty of making a competing political framework is that it puts competing ideas in voters' heads. If all they hear is that the war is a good idea, of course they're going to think it really is. But if they hear arguments against it, they might not think so highly of the war.

Now let's compare that to Kerry's positions. Kerry tried to work within the Republican framework, but made his positions more "moderate".

1. Tax cuts are good. Kerry was therefore pro-tax cuts, but only for the middle class.

2. Iraq War is part of war on terror. Kerry did not challenge the morality of going, but instead claimed he could have done a better job.

3. Deficits aren't a big deal. Kerry did not really challenge this idea forcefully (or forcefully enough).

Using those value judgments, Republicans will always look better to voters. They are for MORE tax cuts than Democrats, and they are the ones who instigated the war. Kerry being pro middle class tax cut is not going to impress tax cut lovers when the other guy is the king of tax cutting.

Their framework is designed to make them win. They spend a ton of money and effort pushing it in the media and among the public. If we latch onto it, we will never win.

Dean knew this, and was prepared to play by a different game. Unfortunately he did not get the chance.

Like being against the war when the other contenders were thinking this was a loser of an issue.

I like his enthusiasm, I like his charisma, I like his simple & direct manner.

He strikes me as smart, straightforward, unabashedly liberal and not under the influence of the "insiders". He gets the job done instead of leaving it to others. He seems not beholden to his handlers.

And he scares the bejeezus out of the freepers.

and is not afraid of being a Democrat. He believes that the Dem Party must reform from the grassroots up, and I believed that before I supported Dean in the primaries. Also, more importantly, he was the first Prez candidate to courageously speak openly against the Iraq War. Dennis Kucinich was not in the race at the time Dean made his choice, a choice that looked suicidal when he made it, but is prescient now that the war in Iraq has gone badly. Also Dean had the courage to chastise the Dem senators who chose the Bush-lite path and had the gall to pretend that they were staunch Democrats.

I wholeheartedly support Dean's vision of "The Great American Restoration", which was the name of his 2003 formal announcement speech. In the speech he emphasized community over "individual or corrupt corporate ownership society."

The legislation I would want Dems to support is one that helps Social Security stay the successful social insurance program FDR created, and I DO NOT want them supporting any of Bush's plans to privatize Social Security. Dems need to make Bush's priratization of Social Security his Waterloo. Dems can do it, if the stick together and we in the grassroots keep the pressure on them and the Repukes. Dean as DNC Chair during that battle would be how the Dems can rally the base to help them defeat Bush and the Repukes on this issue.

I don't have a foot out the door, and neither does Dean. I think the vast majority of his supporters who are still with him now wish to change the party from within. Dean has NEVER SAID he would leave the party, nor even hinted at it. He is a rock-solid loyal Democrat. Some of his earlier supporters (who have all left him for fringe parties now, I think) misread Dean badly.

However, I do as a Democrat reserve my right to vote or not vote for future candidates based on how accurately the party reflects my own views. That is my right, and a prudent decision. It also represents an evolutionary cange in me brought on by Dr. Dean's "You have the power" message. Before Dean, I would just cave and vote the big D regardless. I did that through Kerry's loss, the senator not being a close match to my own fiscal conservatism/social liberalism. But no more.

On the "disruptive and disrespectful" bit, all change agents are seen by the status quo as disruptive and disrespectful. It is a part of being a change agent. If you were complacent, easily led and respectful...uh, WHY WOULD YOU WANT CHANGE!

So those charges just go with the turf.

There are 3 kinds of people in this word, and there are also 3 kinds of Democrats:

1.) Those who make things happen (the disruptive and disrespedctful leadership oriented crowd)

2.) Those who watch things happen (the easily led activists).

3.) Those who wonder what happened (the underinformed general electorate).

Lastly, I generally find that those who are the most criticial of Dr. Dean are those who are the mose woefully uninformed about him. It is the folks with the quick-take media personae of Dean who rip him the worst. People who are very familiar with his background and record have much more respect for the man. And I am heartened that every day, a little more of the "too liberal" lie gets peeled away, and more folks see that Dean isn't the man he was portrayed to be. Above all, he is a consummate pragmatist.